hung_dong wrote:Pemalite wrote:
Pema, all the AMD processors you listed have similar specs, though none have the same dual core quad thread as the Atom n2600, and only the E2-1800 has a faster processor speed of 1.7Ghz.
Lets get this Cores/Threads thing out of the way.
Firstly, Hyperthreading aka, 2 cores 4 threads doesn't mean it's going to be faster than 2 plain cores, this is advertising at it's best.
Essentially each core splits it's resources up in an attempt to process 2 threads at once, this isn't going to double performance, no where near it, you are at most looking at an increase of about 5-10% in efficiency, in some cases it will even reduce performance.
Secondly, the Intel Atom processor architecture is an In-Order design much closer to what the first generation Pentium processors were like before they went with an Out-of-order design, Out of order designs leverage the fact that it can do extra processing between instructions to drive up efficiency instead of wasting clock cycles.
Essentially a 10 year old Pentium 3's single core is faster than a brand new Intel Atom single core.
AMD on the other hand with the "Fusion" processors aka, the E-350/E-450 etc' are based on a fully fledged AMD Athlon core with full Out-of-order execution and a semi-decent integrated graphics card, each core might be similar/slower in clock speed than an Intel Atom but it can also do allot more work per clock than the Intel Atom can ever dream of.
For example in allot of benchmarks, say... Web browsing, the AMD processors at the same speed as a Dual-Core Atom can be anywhere from 30-80% faster.
If anything that uses the graphics card you end up starting to count how many multiples faster the AMD E-350(Brazos) chips are, things that are leveraging GPU compute these days is increasing, Adobe Flash, Windows user interface, web browsing, image manipulation, video encoding the works...
As for battery life, Brazos is very competitive to the Atom as it works on the "Hurry up and idle" philosophy, if you can get the work done in half the time you can use just as much power as a processor that is twice as energy efficient but takes twice as long to do a task, however Atom isn't twice as energy efficient so in most cases the AMD chips are more energy efficient in the long term as it can complete it's tasks faster.
The bonus with the Atom though is that in heavily threaded situation's like Video encoding it can pull ahead in performance, however considering that you can leverage the GPU on the AMD chip to do the encoding and get it done in a faction of the time while using less power, it's really a non-issue.
As for battery life, I think you will find you will need more than just a 6 cell battery to obtain 12 hours, my Atom tablet can almost hit 8 hours with everything in a power saving state on it's 6 cell battery, if I turn the screen off and let it just play music I can squeeze 8 hours out of it, but it doesn't help that it's awfully slow to the point of being frustrating even for the most basic of tasks like a web browser with a single tab, but I may just be used to my Desktop where everything is "instant".
Intertoothh wrote:Ninjacat101 wrote:You will see next to no difference between 32 and 64 bit anyway.
64 bit can address more memory, and becouse it can, it will do.
So if you go for 64 bits software and os, get more memory.
So if your stuck with 'low memory' (2 gb), stick with 32 bits.
Intel placed a hard limit via the chipset on the amount of memory the Atoms can use, anything prior to the D2xxx series it was a maximum of 2gb of Ram, the newer ones all support up-to 4gb, so Windows 32bit if you can get it cheaper would be fine, plus it has the advantage of running old 16bit applications like old Windows 95 games natively.
) +$12 ram.
lol
